A major shift is unfolding in the waters around Antarctica. Scientists have discovered that the Southern Ocean is getting much saltier — and fast.
This change is allowing deep, hidden heat to rise and melt the sea ice from below. Since 2015, Antarctica has lost as much ice as the entire size of Greenland. Even more striking, a massive hole in the sea ice, unseen for 50 years, has reappeared. The result? Faster warming, stronger storms, and big trouble for wildlife that depends on the ice.
Sudden Southern Ocean Shift
Researchers have discovered a dramatic and unexpected shift in the Southern Ocean, with surface water salinity rising and sea ice in steep decline.
Since 2015, Antarctica has lost sea ice equal to the size of Greenland, the largest environmental shift seen anywhere on Earth in recent decades. The Southern Ocean is also getting saltier, and this unexpected change is making the problem worse.
For decades, the ocean’s surface freshened (becoming less salty), helping sea ice grow. Now, scientists say that trend has sharply reversed.
Salinity Spike Detected by Satellites
Using European satellite data, research led by the University of Southampton has discovered a sudden rise in surface salinity south of 50° latitude.
This has coincided with a dramatic loss of sea ice around Antarctica and the re-emergence of the Maud Rise polynya in the Weddell Sea – a huge hole in the sea ice nearly four times the size of Wales, which hadn’t occurred since the 1970s.
The findings were published on June 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Maud Rise Polynya Reopens
Dr. Alessandro Silvano from the University of Southampton, who led the research, said: “Saltier surface water allows deep ocean heat to rise more easily, melting sea ice from below. It’s a dangerous feedback loop: less ice leads to more heat, which leads to even less ice.
“The return of the Maud Rise polynya signals just how unusual the current conditions are. If this salty, low-ice state continues, it could permanently reshape the Southern Ocean — and with it, the planet. The effects are already global: stronger storms, warmer oceans, and shrinking habitats for penguins and other iconic Antarctic wildlife.”
Feedback Loop Weakens Stratification
In these polar waters, cold, fresh surface water overlays warmer, saltier waters from the deep. In the winter, as the surface cools and sea ice forms, the density difference (stratification) between water layers weakens, allowing these layers to mix and heat to be transported upward, melting the sea ice from below and limiting its growth.
Since the early 1980s, the surface of the Southern Ocean had been freshening, and stratification had been strengthening, trapping heat below and sustaining more sea ice coverage.
Now, new satellite technology, combined with information from floating robotic devices which travel up and down the water column, shows this trend has reversed; surface salinity is increasing, stratification is weakening, and sea ice has reached multiple record lows – with large openings of open ocean in the sea ice (polynyas) returning.
Real-Time Data Upends Expectations
It’s the first time scientists have been able to monitor these changes in the Southern Ocean in real-time.
Contrary to the new findings, man-made climate change was generally expected to sustain Antarctic Sea ice cover over the coming years.
Aditya Narayanan, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Southampton and co-author on the paper, explains: “While scientists expected that human-driven climate change would eventually lead to Antarctic Sea ice decline, the timing and nature of this shift remained uncertain.
“Previous projections emphasized enhanced surface freshening and stronger ocean stratification, which could have supported sustained sea ice cover. Instead, a rapid reduction in sea ice—an important reflector of solar radiation—has occurred, potentially accelerating global warming.”
Urgent Call for Continuous Monitoring
Professor Alberto Naveira Garabato, co-author of the study and Regius Professor of Ocean Sciences at the University of Southampton, added: “The new findings suggest that our current understanding may be insufficient to accurately predict future changes.”
“It makes the need for continuous satellite and in-situ monitoring all the more pressing, so we can better understand the drivers of recent and future shifts in the ice-ocean system.”
Reference: “Rising surface salinity and declining sea ice: A new Southern Ocean state revealed by satellites” by Alessandro Silvano, Aditya Narayanan, Rafael Catany, Estrella Olmedo, Verónica González‐Gambau, Antonio Turiel, Roberto Sabia, Matthew R. Mazloff, Theo Spira, F. Alexander Haumann and Alberto C. Naveira Garabato, 30 June 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2500440122
The project was supported by the European Space Agency.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
27 Comments
Homo unsapiens suicidalis est…
Just admit that summer’s gate is real and don’t be like nasa deceiving people
To suggest that NASA (or NOAA, or the NWS, or NHC) have deceived the public is completely incorrect.
Since the 1960s all of the agencies (one of where I worked) have spent decades collecting information, understanding the underlying processes and telling people exactly what would happen if we continue to belch carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.
This is not conspiracy, this is science. Choose to ignore it and in another couple of generations, the planet will take its revenge on our species.
Have you noticed that the CO2 we have been “belching” has turned the Earth greener? NASA satellites found that out. By not emphasizing that to the general public might be called deceptive. Not by NASA but the media. Their deceptions are elsewhere…data adjustments.
“Choose to ignore it and in another couple of generations, the planet will take its revenge on our species.”
That sounds more like some kind of mysticism than the Scientific Method I learned. Where is the evidence to support your warning? Can you assign any numbers to the “revenge” that the planet will exact on humans? Mathematics has been called the language of science. Surely, you can provide the readership with some verifiable numbers that support your idea of science.
I’m afraid overrate the role of methane:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/06/the-misguided-crusade-to-reduce-anthropogenic-methane-emissions/
Perfect!
“This change is allowing deep, hidden heat to rise and melt the sea ice from below.”
Where did the heat come from? It couldn’t have come from the air above. Might it be coming from volcanoes?
“…, a massive hole in the sea ice, unseen for 50 years, has reappeared.”
What is responsible for a loss of ice in a particular spot when the water, air, and ice are all moving? The only thing that is fixed is the bottom of the ocean! Is there a volcano below?
“Since 2015, Antarctica has lost sea ice equal to the size of Greenland, the largest environmental shift seen anywhere on Earth in recent decades.”
For comparisons, one should be using the volume of ice, not the area. Without specifying the thickness, a thin layer of ice can cover any area. It is a poor comparison.
“Researchers have discovered a dramatic and unexpected shift in the Southern Ocean, with surface water salinity rising and sea ice in steep decline.”
How is the salinity increasing if the sea ice is melting and adding fresh water?
So many questions and so few well-supported answers!
Did you bother to read the article? All of your questions are answered.
It should be obvious that I read the article. How else would I have been able to provide the quotes and ask questions about them.
Therefore, I’m going to assume that your remark is little more than a cheap shot attempting to insult me. I’ll continue to hold that opinion until such time as you point me to the specific sentences in the article that actually answer the questions I asked.
“How is the salinity increasing if the sea ice is melting and adding fresh water?” Good question.
I will make an unsupported assertion i.e. a guess. Melting sea-ice contributes sweet FA to the salinity of the seas around Antarctica. That c fresh-water comes from the run-off from onshore and floating glaciers as well as calving etc from the same. The rate of change of increasing salinity is therefore less than that rate of change of the freshening ability of the fresh water coming from the Antarctica’s glaciers. Someone else can work out the maths of that idea; it should be possible within an inch or two. Anyone want a PhD doing it?
Hmm, how odd not a single mention of the latest data that tells us that Antarctica has gained over a 100 gigatons of ice in the last year and has been gaining and not losing ice over the last couple years. I suppose that just doesn’t fit their narrative 🙄
Hmmm, how odd that deniers think they know better than every professional science organization in the world. Slogans and conspiracy theories are not science,
Both Antarctica and Greenland have been losing huge amounts of land ice, one year not changing that trend. Antarctica has been losing about 150 billion tons of glacial ice per year between 2002 and 2023.
And Greenland has been losing about 250 billion tons of glacial ice per year.
Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by approximately 72% since 1980.
————–
Central Europe, including the Alps, has experienced a loss of nearly 40% of its glacial ice in the past two decades.
https://scitechdaily.com/the-alps-are-melting-four-decades-of-glacier-loss-captured-from-space/#:~:text=The%20Alps%20Are%20Melting:%20Four%20Decades%20of%20Glacier%20Loss%20Captured%20From%20Space,-By%20Kathryn%20Hansen&text=Satellite%20view%20of%20the%20Great,in%20the%20past%20two%20decades.
———————————–
Switzerland has lost one-third of its glacier volume since 2000, according to official statistics, and 10% has disappeared in the last two years alone.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/06/it-made-me-cry-photos-taken-15-years-apart-show-melting-swiss-glaciers
——————————————-
“China’s glacier area has shrunk by 26% since 1960 due to rapid global warming, with 7,000 small glaciers disappearing completely and glacial retreat intensifying in recent years, official data released in March showed.”
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/chinas-glacier-area-shrinks-by-26-over-six-decades-2025-03-26/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawJReNVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRyoK-2rdWPISVlY6NR6CdRQEo7ERsorfOxHpASEvLuNRAIOvGEX4HHTXw_aem_T4NT_t6fP2q8P3CEa1ARow
———————–
NZ’s glaciers have already lost nearly a third of their ice – as more vanishes, landscapes and lives change
“New Zealand ranks third globally in the proportion of ice lost from glaciers. Almost 30% of ice volume has melted during the past 24 years and what remains is disappearing at an accelerating pace, according to a recent global assessment.”
Almost 300 glaciers have now vanished completely from New Zealand’s mountains.
https://theconversation.com/nzs-glaciers-have-already-lost-nearly-a-third-of-their-ice-as-more-vanishes-landscapes-and-lives-change-250617?fbclid=IwY2xjawJBu7JleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWwbTGQDW5SvLGWF7Npxi0OFD2_J1xeU277kmt-x-kxBEbRo-LtCXrqZnA_aem_SJ_g5vP-_kpMJI8vtPbKJg
“Hmmm, how odd that deniers think they know better than every professional science organization in the world. Slogans and conspiracy theories are not science,”
Your pejorative remark about “deniers” strongly suggests that you are not an unbiased observer of this subject. However, let me point out to you that nowhere in any explanation of the Scientific Method will you find a step that includes a tally of professional organizations, or its members, who support a particular paradigm. The evidence for or against something should stand on its own and not be dismissed solely because a large number of ‘experts’ do not support it. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was not well received by the physics community of his day, and 100 physicists wrote a critique of his theory. Einstein’s response was, “Why 100 when it would only take one to prove me wrong?” Your remarks above lead me to believe that you have little understanding of science, particularly the Scientific Method.
I don’t engage in “Slogans and conspiracy theories.” You will rarely find me pontificating on what I think the truth is. When I do, I usually provide links to things that I have written, which include graphs, tables, discussion of why I think logic dictates a particular conclusion, and citations. Most of the time here on SciTechDaily, I point out contradictions in claims in the articles, or when I see what are contradictions to claims made by others, I ask a question. In the future, feel free to answer such question(s) to the best of your ability.
Most of your quotations above are really non sequiturs because there is no doubt that glaciers have been melting for about 20,000 years, with the rate accelerating starting about 12,000 years ago, and then being relatively constant for the last 8,000 years. The question isn’t as you imply, “Are glaciers melting?”, but rather, “How much is the Earth warming and what role do humans play?” Particularly, “Is anthropogenic CO2 totally responsible for warming, or is the recent correlation between warming and anthro’ CO2 a spurious correlation?” I’m sorry you invested so much time in obtaining the quotations when they don’t really apply. Perhaps you took a shortcut and relied on one of the many AI LLMs readily available on the internet. Next time, be sure you understand the question.
Excluding official melodramas such as the assorted real ice ages, the NZ glaciers with which I am familiar reached their maximum extents around the 1880-1890s and have been retreating ever since. I am under the personal anecdotal impression that melting begin increasing in around the mid-late 1970s; but that is anecdotal. However half of one across which I used to walk is now a lake and the former lateral moraines are collapsing.
Clearly, I missed out on a long-term (50-year) research project……………
The ability to warm Earth’s surface temperature by increasing atmospheric CO2 has been known since 1896. Why is your default position to assume that modern science cannot have a valid conclusion about that being right?
Which means a lot more rock-falls as the mountain ice holds the rock together for those who like climbing the higher mountains……a lively landscape. And the glaciers have acted as buttresses against large-scale, slow slumping of the mountainsides.
” And the glaciers have acted as buttresses against large-scale, slow slumping of the mountainsides.”
Temporarily, at best. But a blink in the eye on a geologic time scale. The problem is that humans have such a short lifespan, and a general inability to look more than a few days into the future, that they don’t anticipate the inevitable when they build in geologically unstable environments.
Indeed temporarily. Assuming those glaciers vanish, then those mountain slopes are certainly going to re-equiibrate their angle of slope. It is not for nothing that Kiwi mountaineers in the Southern Alps use the term “Weetbix when describing what they climb on. On the geological scale, who knows what may become the case although one may surmise that as long as the Pacific Plate keeps charging forward in a westerly direction those mountains will keep uplifting at around 10mm per year, or whatever number is favoured by Kiwi geologists these days
NASA and NOAA are not who is fooling you. Unlike your silly conspiracy theories that you believe without a spec of skepticism, the real scam is an extremely well documented fact.
The massive PR machine of climate change disinformation that deniers believe is funded by the fossil fuels industry and other anti environmental regulation allies of them.
The disinformation is spread by these proxies, that they fund.
These 32 conservative organizations have all been funded by and involved in the Tobacco industry’s campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
They are all now funded by fossil fuels, to do the same in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.
1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocqueville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation
——————
#5, #9 and #10 were created by the billionaire oil and lumber tycoon Koch brothers, who fund all kinds of anti-environmental PR.
#24 Junk Science, which is aptly named, is run by Steve Milloy, who Fox News likes to feature as an “expert” on climate change. Milloy is NOT a scientist. He’s a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests and a professional PR man. Did Fox ever divulge that? I doubt it. And Milloy gets funding from, guess who? – the Koch brothers.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, your extensive list above is a claim I’m familiar
with. Guilt by association (tobacco) is not proof. It is simply an unethical approach used by someone who does not have any actual proof.
Even IF an organization receives funding from the fossil fuel industry, it is not proof that the recipient produces biased content. It rises to the level of a red flag that the organization MAY have a conflict of interest. However, sometimes the donor is broad-minded enough to want both sides presented. After all, the Evil Koch Twins used to support the PBS NOVA programs. The list of funders is not available at the moment, so I’m relying on my memory.
Now as to the “extremely well documented fact,” I have previously attempted to verify this claim independently. I was unable to do so, so I turned to MS’s Copilot AI LLM and asked if it could substantiate the claims such as you have made above. It started out by claiming that “The Climate Realism website is associated with the Climate Reality Project, which was founded by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. It is funded through private donations, proceeds from Gore’s books and documentaries on climate change, and other fundraising campaigns.” I pointed out that the Climate Realism website was supported by the conservative Heartland Institute. Copilot profusely apologized. I pressed it for the specific information I was interested in, such as the amount of money given to the various organizations.
It went on to say, “You make a valid point—it is indeed a stretch to claim direct support based solely on the example I provided. While Fred Singer’s trajectory illustrates a shared playbook between the tobacco industry and climate change skeptics, it doesn’t prove that tobacco companies directly funded campaigns against the consensus on anthropogenic climate change.” It went on to say, “The lack of transparency in funding makes it difficult to provide precise details.”
I responded with, “You have repeated what you said in your previous reply. Can I assume that you have done your best, or are there some restrictions on what you are allowed to say?” It, in turn responded with, “Thanks for pointing that out—you’re right, I repeated myself without delivering the specifics you requested. I strive to provide the most thorough and accurate answers possible, but sometimes the available evidence on such nuanced topics doesn’t meet the level of detail required, particularly when it comes to financial disclosures and timelines.”
Based on my exchanges with Copilot, I’m comfortable with saying that YOUR claim that your list of organizations that have received funding from fossil fuel companies cannot be verified and doesn’t rise to the level of “extremely well documented fact.” It appears to be something that your are quick to accept, yet cannot provide the amounts of money given to whom by whom. That is, it has about as much veracity as a rumor. It may be true, but there is no evidence to establish that — unless you are holding something back.
“The disinformation is spread by these proxies, that they fund.”
Speaking of “disinformation,” the news media participate in spreading disinformation. Snopes has recently taken the media to task for doing so:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/online-reports-claimed-ocean-current-near-antarctica-reversed-direction-research-didn-t-show-that/ar-AA1IAJiD?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=6d877da3d2e149a1e6e7ee238d7ec5f5&ei=16
Snopes has confirmed with the lead author that an article that has been circulating on the internet is inaccurate. It would seem to be a good idea to be skeptical of what gets ‘published’ on the internet.
P.S. For two bob’s worth I am not the same Bob as the preceding Bob. Going by the name of Rob, that is yet another ttypographic w eerror.
There is a good reason that people have adopted surnames ever since the world population grew beyond tribes and small villages. Even small villages created problems as “Eric” alone wasn’t sufficient so a particular one, “Eric the Red” differentiated him from other Erics in his and neighboring villages. Then, there was Leif, Eric’s Son, to distinguish him from other Liefs in the region. You might consider giving yourself a more unique name than “Rob.” Maybe even your family name to avoid confusion.
I gather that “Hob” is a Mediaeval version of both “Rob” and “Bob”. However, I am sure that my readers can recognise me by my prejudices, which includes pedantry; “unique” is one those words that cannot properly be preceded by “more” or “most”.
This is nonsense. They’ve compared the 2015 MAXimum to the current MINimum. That’s cherry picking. Bad “scientists”, no cookies for you.
w.
Why was the polyna present in the 1970s? (I skimmed the article – need to pick up my wife!)